THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH

RnMomof7 | 9/7/01 | Charles Finney

[George W. Bush]

that was the same antiTrinitian nonsense that Uriel used before. Do you think the Father would deny anything to the Son? It is amazing how desperate you guys are to defend TULIP even to the point of attacking the Trinity itself! And you guys claim to be defenders of 'orthodoxy'! My goodness, we stayed up a little late and got a little cranky, didn't we?

If Uriel discussed this, I somehow missed it. I'm sure he knows more than I and explains it better. I somehow doubt that my own poor ideas on the topic are as well-founded as his.

The Father's 'sole sovereignity' as opposed to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Gee, I always thought they were coequal? How about that! Is that one of those 'scholastic formulations' that 'doc' claimed I was ignorant of? I think that the idea of the Father's pre-emininence in the Godhead is not limited to Calvinists. I could, I think, raise a whole nest of thorny questions on the idea of an absolute co-equality of Christ and the Father if that is your position. But I don't desire to do that because scripture doesn't reveal it strongly enough for me to be comfortable disputing it. It is important that we know what the Bible does teach us about the Trinity absolutely and to avoid the heresies of the past. It's just as important to know what the real limits of knowledge are. I don't think my ideas on a few of these topics endangers my faith but helps guard me. And I don't go looking for such questions. Nor do I think your ideas of co-equality between the Father and Son are a problem. If they are and you belong to Christ, He will sort it out. I know it. It may merely be that these are two aspects of the Godhead that we can't see. Given the tone you're taking here, I suggest that this is exactly the sort of profitless speculation which can divide the brethren against which Paul warned Timothy so soberly.

I'd like to point out that if men were capable of fulling knowing and understanding the Godhead fully, we would then be like the angels, with a direct knowledge of God. So I don't think any man on the earth except Jesus has ever understood the full nature of the Godhead. We are not given to know the mind of God in this life. Personally, I've suspected that one of the reasons we will be given new bodies in heaven is because no human body can see God and live. We cannot see God in the weak vessels of this flesh. It's a sobering thought.

As far as those "scholastic formulations", well, I'm too ignorant to know exactly what they are though I do know in general a little about the Scholastics and their influence. You'd better take it up with doc. If you ask nicely, he probably would give you a good explanation of it.

And Calvin had Servitus burned at the stake for HIS definition of the Trinity! How you clutch this to your breast like a beloved child. Calvin had no civil authority in Geneva and never did. If Servetus was wrongly executed, it was not by any power held by Calvin. He objected to the cruelty of burning and tried to spare Servetus that agony. Your words are a stronger indictment against you than they are against Calvin.

[RnMomof7]

Have you considered that possibly Christ does not actually know us as His own until the Father gives us into His care as His sheep, His bondslaves? The Father knew us before the foundation of the world.

If Jesus is who He says he is (thus indicating He knew who he was and is)or He was a liar.

The question is did Jesus retain the knowlege of the Godhead as He walked this earth?

I believe that He had all knowlege,or much of what He says makes no sense.

When He says in John 10:30 "I and [my] Father are one." was that a good guess? if they ARE one then would He not have his Fathers knowlege

I see a nationalist center to the verses on the sheep...but for the purpose of discussion here read it from a Calvinist perspective

Read John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:..

That is current tense GW...Not I will know them I do know them.So IF you take this as a predestination quote...it indicates CURRENT knowlege.

Look at Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven

That along with many prophetic statements indicates to me that Jesus had perfect knowlege..

Luke 8:43And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
8:44Came behind [him], and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
8:45And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press [thee], and sayest thou, Who touched me?
8:46And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
8:47And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
8:48And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

GW I love this scripture..it comes as an offer..reah out and touch...and He will make you whole..

[RnMomof7]

The title of your paper? I'm a afraid to even hazard a guess... ; )

Well I will have to see what the prof wants...but I dont believe in "accidents" and I do think that this continuing dialogue this summer will be a base for a study on Calvinism/Arminism in some way.

When it takes shape in my head I will let you know

[RnMomof7]

I like the idea that it was women's names - one name for each Pharisee...

It was definately their sin it would seem..."Let he that is without ..." But we also have to remember his admonitation to the woman.."Go and sin no more"...

[neutrino]

Interesting thread - thank you for posting it!

[George W. Bush]

I believe that He had all knowlege,or much of what He says makes no sense. And I tend to think there are statements that don't make much sense if Jesus employed the full powers of omniscience and omnipotentence and omnipresence from His birth to His ascension.

But I don't think my salvation or yours hinges on this question. I don't think anyone has ever seen fully the true nature of the Trinity. Our minds just aren't capable of it. It's very easy in these matters to find yourself whistling along happily while skating on very thin ice.

Read John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:..

That is current tense GW...Not I will know them I do know them.So IF you take this as a predestination quote...it indicates CURRENT knowlege. Yes, it is current tense. Completely consistent with what I was saying before. The scripture tells us that that God the Father foreknew and predestined us from the foundation of the world to come to Him through Christ. But this verse only indicates that Christ knows His own sheep now. Not that He (Christ) knew them prior to the foundation of the world. So thank you for helping prove my point.

Look at Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven

That along with many prophetic statements indicates to me that Jesus had perfect knowlege.. I don't think we can ever truly and fully reconcile the Godhead. And I'm content with what I know. Our Lord will correct me as needed.

Yes, I like the story of the woman grasping His hem too. It's a very special account. But it does give rise to a few questions that seem almost unknowable by scripture. And I am still content with that.

[nobdysfool]

Speaking of people being saved prior to Christs death, there are a number of scriptures which teach that the OT saints were justified bt faith as we are.

Good point! And very true...Abraham was justified by faith. David was a "man after God's own Heart". All through the OT, there are examples of people saved by faith, just as we are. I do not hold with the idea that OT saints were not able to be saved the same way we are. The issue is not the words we say (the sinner's prayer, etc.) but the attitude of the heart. Our salvation is based on the imputation of the righteousness of God to those who, in repentance, turn to God and acknowledge their complete inability to save themselves, and rely on and look to God to rescue them from their sinful state. Jesus made a way for us to receive the ongoing forgiveness of sins and ongoing imputation of the righteousness of God through His sacrifice of Himself at Calvary. It can be boiled down to this: salvation is a matter of position. We are either "in Adam", i.e. sinful, sinners by nature (whether or not we have actually committed a sin), or we are "in Christ", i.e. justified, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, which is God's own righteousness. God sees us in that fashion. If we are "in Christ" we have access to the Father, to the benefits of His Mercy, Grace, and Blessing, or we are "in Adam", subject to the imputation of sin, the curse of sin, and the certain judgement against all who sin and rebel against God, both Man and Angel. There really is no middle ground. We are either "in Christ" or "in Adam".

To be sure, we must not assume that it is a "once done, never changed" transaction that allows us then to continue living the way we did before. Paul dealt with that notion in several of his letters to the churches. There is the aspect of "abiding" in Christ's teachings and Word, which would be the natural result of true conversion. If you have truly repented, you could not continue to go the same way as before. If one turns (repents) as one is walking, by necessity one is going in a different direction than before. It cannot be otherwise.

[RnMomof7]

To be sure, we must not assume that it is a "once done, never changed" transaction that allows us then to continue living the way we did before. Paul dealt with that notion in several of his letters to the churches. There is the aspect of "abiding" in Christ's teachings and Word, which would be the natural result of true conversion. If you have truly repented, you could not continue to go the same way as before. If one turns (repents) as one is walking, by necessity one is going in a different direction than before. It cannot be otherwise.

oppps be prepared to get hit on this one..*grin*..that is a bit more Wesleyan thought than most here care to hear

[nobdysfool]

Bring it on...and forget the labels...I'm a Christian, not a Wesleyan, Calvinist, Arminian, or any other label. I see God as utterly consistent, logical, and completely Sovereign. His Word is the final authority, and His word is completely self-consistent.

As to the supposed "Wesleyan" idea of salvation being an ongoing rather than one-time experience, would not even human logic indicate that one must "walk the walk" in order for it to be true? I mean, think about it! If a one-time experience with no ongoing aspects to it is a life-defining moment, then if you've ever been arrested (even falsely) for an offence, then ever afterward you are a criminal, and none can change that. That seems to be the logic behind the "once-saved, always-saved" camp.

[Alas]

How did you do that? Post number nine has been deleted.

[Alas]

Sorry, I meant post number eight has been deleted, but how did you do that?

[George W. Bush]

I hit Abuse and requested deletion of the post which was a lot of intellectual rot on posttextual theory, although it did give me a chance to take a swat at the foolishness of the neo-evangelicals to consider anything by Foucault to worthy of debate.

When I hit Abuse, I informed our hosts that the offender had done this deliberately and this wasn't the first time. We've had other disruptors before. The Robinsons are very kind to us on this matter. As well as exceedingly generous with their bandwidth for these threads. Perhaps you'll read my following post which will give you an idea of why so many of us "Calvinists" consider religious debate to absolutely vital to our politics.

[George W. Bush]

Well I will have to see what the prof wants...but I dont believe in "accidents" and I do think that this continuing dialogue this summer will be a base for a study on Calvinism/Arminism in some way. Actually, something that might be awfully interesting is a study of the roots of conflict between Arminians and Calvinists. Beza was Calvin's successor and Arminius was his student. That's interesting. Calvin did not formulate the TULIP. Nor did Arminius issue the challenge against Calvin's theology: his followers did nine years after he died. And the TULIP as such, was unknown to Calvin and was created by the response of the Dutch Reformed Church to the followers of the deceased Arminius. Further, of the five doctrines of the classic TULIP, some modern Calvinists are only four-pointers and claim that Calvin didn't really affirm Limited Atonement (they're wrong!). We call the four-point Calvinists "Amyrauldians" after Amyruut (another Frenchman!) who held only four of the five points but did not do so on exactly the same grounds as do modern "Amyrauldians". Amyraut, something of an enemy to modern five-pointers, actually was trying to defend Calvinism but ended up weakening it and now has to carry the badge of shame attached to his name by five-pointers. This all has to do with differences in Reformed theology and the infralapsarian/supralapsarian debate. And Amyraut's views were modified by Pajon (yep, French) into "congruism". And, interestingly enough, there is are certain aspects of this very debate that delineate the theologies of redemption among Lutherans, Arminians, and (you guessed it) Wesleyans. By the way, this is still very much a hot theological topic in all these groups. And there is no perfect answer to the question. Interesting to know the roots of theological controversy in the Reformation that affects Wesleyans to this day, especially Nazarenes who are the most visible remnant of Wesley's real teachings (we'll just ignore any claim the Methodists make to Wesley's teachings). Oh, yeah, and don't think that all this French theological controversy left the church of Rome untouched. They're still trying to stamp out the fires that spread from France from this one. A really superb summary of this in the context of Subjective Soteriology is available from the Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies. This page, heavy reading, is really superb at delineating the technical differences between all these Reformed distinctives. I think it is not too harsh or unfair and makes the arguments of five-pointers from historical scholarship.

Calvin and Arminius did not actually lead either side in the battle to which their names have been given as adversaries. One wonders what their real reaction to all of this might have been. There is real truth in it when doc and some other Calvinists say that they follow the doctrines of grace which they trace to Augustine through Calvin and, more recently, Spurgeon.

So a historical paper on that subject might be pretty interesting. Does modern four-point or five-point Calvinism really fully represent the religious thought of Jean Chauvin of Geneva? I suspect not. Calvin saw scripture as an integrated whole and so much of what he did was to safeguard the Reformation. Unlike Luther, who really sought only to reform the Roman hierarchy and re-establish Augustine's predestinarian views, Calvin was the first real Protestant and saw that the full teaching of the scripture were not compatible with the doctrines of Rome and never would be. This is something that all non-Catholics should be able to recognize about Calvin. He was the real father of the Reformation, not Luther. To pluck out those five doctrines (the TULIP) and say that these were what Calvin really stood for misstates or rather understates the case. And, to some extent, the same might be true of Arminius. We "Calvinists" accuse him of a return to Rome's doctrine and an embrace of the Council of Trent's position. But exactly how did he envision that his theology should be practically applied? Was he really no more than a theological ecumenizer for Rome? Maybe. Maybe not.

I think that over the centuries, we've lost sight of the real Calvin and perhaps even the real Arminius.

Look at that table above again where Johnson differentiates Wesley from other "Arminians". He is noting that Wesley was not as fully Arminian as other Arminians because he upheld the Reformation's doctrine of justification by faith. Not all the Arminians were so inclined. So one must ask: what was the influence that held him to the Reformed position on justification? Was Whitefield an influence here? For that matter, how was it that Whitefield and Wesley, despite that bitter and unfortunate dispute, held each other in such regard?

Another sidenote to Geneva and to Calvin and Beza and their associates is the story of the Protestant bibles. Erasmus, a dissident Roman Catholic priest and the greatest scholar in Europe, used the Greek texts of the Eastern church (not Roman) to assemble the Textus Receptus, the majority text, discarding as corrupt the texts used by Rome. Luther used this text to create the Lutheran bible and, incidentally, virtually created the modern standardized German language. The same thing happened later when the English language was standardized by the influence of the King James. But Geneva played a special role. They produced the Geneva Bible which contained the anti-monarchical and pro-republican views of Calvin in the margins. Also produced in Geneva were some other Bibles including a famous French version (can't recall the name) and an Italian version (the Diodati). All using the Textus Receptus, a translation so opposed by Rome that the Jesuits were actually founded to combat its influence in Europe. In response to the Geneva bible, they produced the first modern Catholic bible in English, the Jesuit bible, which modeled as closely as possible the magnificent language of the King James. King James had the Authorized produced largely because he wanted a pure text without footnotes. Now, King James wasn't necessarily totally opposed to study helps or commentary and was himself a very devout man. But he was certainly opposed to Calvin's anti-monarchical and pro-republican views found in the margins of the Geneva bible, a version that became very popular in England. During this period, the Jesuits continued to make their Jesuit bible (the forerunner of the Douay) closer and closer to the Authorized because they wished to hold onto as many Roman Catholic Englishmen as they could and very strongly desired to be able to use the emerging English world empire as a missionary outlet, much as they had used the Spanish and the Portugese. In the meantime, the republican seeds planted in England by the Calvin's seditious Geneva bible were sprouting. The Puritans and others were leaving for America, carrying their Geneva bibles. And up until the time of the American revolution, there was still in the American colonies a very substantial presence of the pro-republic/anti-monarch Geneva bible. It particularly stirred the pro-republican sentiments among the early Presbyterians and other Calvinists. As Uriel would point out, all but one of the colonels in the Revolutionary army was a stout Presby. And it's been pretty well established that the entire Declaration of Independence was lifted almost verbatim from a stunning letter from a pro-republican Presby church. I am sure you can see by now why Uriel is so proud of his historic Presbyterians.

I could really go on here much further, noting how the decline in Calvinism and the rise of easy-believerism marked as well a decline in real liberty and the rise of the sort of federalism that most here at FR utterly oppose. But I'll stop short of calling Mr. Lincoln a dictator and an enemy of American liberty. However, one can readily see that Calvin had an influence that has gone far far beyond the TULIP. Probably beyond what even he could have imagined. And we forget that very often on these threads. And we forget that the story of the Bible really is the story of Western (i.e. Christian) civilization. The battle for the Bible is absolutely central to any real understanding of history, something well hidden by modern historians when they write the pap we call history textbooks for the consumption of the little sheeple in the public schools.

It's very interesting to think about. Quite often, these conventional labels we assign to historical figures does them an injustice and hides what their own priorities were. I just think the whole thing is fascinating.

Perhaps you understand now why doc doesn't lay a real strong claim to Calvin and why Jerry, while not rejecting the Calvinist label, sometimes prefers to call himself a "grace man", and why I often enclose the words "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" in quotes.

We should really flatter Uriel and beg him to post all of the material he has on this stuff in one single unified post and include his newer anabaptist information as well. It's really fascinating.

[Alas]

In your response to HP,

"Well, when He was tempted by Satan, it was clear that He could call upon the angels to save Him. But did not. This was an indication of His vast and Godlike powers prior to the crucifixion even. So, the picture to me isn't entirely clear. But He certainly was granted the power to perform miracles. It seems to me from reading His prayers that these were performed through the power of the Father. But this is not, for me, a crucial matter. "

¶ And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days He did eat nothing: and when they were ended, He afterward hungered. And the devil said unto Him, If Thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

And the devil, taking Him up into an high mountain, shewed unto Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto Him, All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from Him for a season.

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. Luke 2:1-14

In Matthews account of the same incident, it ends with:

Then the devil leaveth Him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto Him. Matthew 3:11

While yes, angels do come and serve the lord as reported in Matthew 3:11, I think this is not proof that the Lord could call down angels from heaven to do His bidding, but, here in Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? When the Lord is talking to Peter, now here is proof that if the Lord wanted His angels, they would come in a heratbeat at His call.

Yeshua bless you.

[Alas]

I hit Abuse and requested deletion

How do you hit Abuse?

I too consider our Christian faith to be absolutley necessary to our politics.

[RnMomof7]

When I hit Abuse, I informed our hosts that the offender had done this deliberately and this wasn't the first time. We've had other disruptors before. The Robinsons are very kind to us on this matter. As well as exceedingly generous with their bandwidth for these threads.

And so may I suggest a generous contribution for the upkeep of FR..look for the nearest Freepathon thread PLEASE! LINK

Perhaps you'll read my following post which will give you an idea of why so many of us "Calvinists" consider religious debate to absolutely vital to our politics.

You as a Calvinist may see it as essential to the "political" debate, Non calvinists see it as an opportunity to bring the gospel :>))

[George W. Bush]

While yes, angels do come and serve the lord as reported in Matthew 3:11, I think this is not proof that the Lord could call down angels from heaven to do His bidding, but, here in Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? When the Lord is talking to Peter, now here is proof that if the Lord wanted His angels, they would come in a heratbeat at His call. Personally, I hope we return to the topic as some of this discussion has made me a little uncomfortable, though you couldn't probably tell from the length of what I wrote. Thank you for your industriousness with the scripture. I need to post it more often. And, yes, this confirms again how Jesus' power while He walked on earth was derived through the Father. Again, it seems consistent with the other things which I posted earlier. But now and then it worries me a little that I can't explain even to myself exactly why I believe these things. It makes me very suspicious of my thinking in these matters which are not fully revealed in scripture. The Word is our sure foundation and even one step away from it is a danger that we stray into peril.

BTTT

[George W. Bush]

And so may I suggest a generous contribution for the upkeep of FR..look for the nearest Freepathon thread PLEASE! You're a better FReeper than I for posting this reminder.

But I'll point out that FR Calvinists are, in fact, diligent in their financial support of the forum, a diligence which parallels amazingly our scriptural support for the TULIP.

[RnMomof7]

Calvin saw scripture as an integrated whole and so much of what he did was to safeguard the Reformation.

I was just talking to a Nazerene that is teaching a Sunday School class tomorrow..He mentioned that as part of his preparation he had read his Calvin Commentaries. How is it that we are less threatened by Calvin,than the Calvinists that post here are of us?

Calvins approach was less agressive than some of the posters here..

Thanks for the thoughts on research...I will let you know what the prof wants from us..

[RnMomof7]

How do you hit Abuse?

check the menu at the bottom of the page..but PLEASE do not abuse it..Calvinists and Arminians and Weselyans all do share a love of freedom of speech :>))